12 | Trusting the Information Overlords?

Google has taken online advertising to a previously unimaginable level. Registered users for Google services, including the popular iGoogle feature, freely give away their search history and online behavior to the information giant. GMail users provide Google with personal email messages, which are read by machines to guess their interests and preferences. No, the good folks at Google aren’t watching you 24/7, but their machines are. Ads become tailored to people’s specific behavior, arguably helping the user by providing more relevant offers. However, there are times when information can go sour, as a man was convicted of murder after Google turned over his search activity for how to kill his wife. Just know that if it hasn't happened already, the time may come where Google will sell your search activity and interests to interested parties. Facebook has also been implicated in selling information to student’s employers and keeping tabs on people’s online behavior.

Although Google and Facebook have been responsible, or good at coverups, so far, the question still remains as to why we freely provide registration-based sites with so much personal information. Marketing and corporate impression management play a role in developing a trusting user base. Google’s colorful and kindergartenesque logo would never hurt a fly. Facebook manages a hip and youthful culture, allowing users to give friends naughty gifts and freely socialize with others, making it cool to be on Facebook. The Hyperpersonal Theory clarifies why we form such positive opinions; we form more intense impressions from very limited corporate branding information. Reallocation of cognitive resources dictates that we pay attention to the most obvious parts of a website, such as overall look and feel. Most web surfers know very little about the online economy, and retain their first impressions of a website based on looks and features. The over-attribution process also plays a role in impression formation; knowing Facebook was like MySpace turned me off a little at first, as I was quick to make a generalization. However, once the initial impression is formed, if the user likes the service, he or she will progressively continue to like it through the developmental aspect of the Hyperpersonal Theory, or quickly leave the site if he or she doesn't like it. Thus, just as the Hyperpersonal model applies to personality assessment, most users will make intense impressions about a website from initial interaction with limited cues. People either love the online service and stick with it for years to come, or simply click the back button.

Because the face to face meeting with the CEOs of Google and Facebook never occurs for most people, the intense CMC impressions stand the test of time, allowing initial users of Google and Facebook to continue using the technology despite bumps in the road every now and then (eg. the Facebook newsfeed).

SIDE also explains why we’re wiling to trust large websites with our personal information. What attracted me to Facebook was the fact that everyone was doing it; it felt more like a group to me. Although we can see each others’ pictures, I would argue that Facebook is visually anonymous because we can select how much we want to share through our profile, keeping it private and anonymous to some people. Facebook also takes advantage of Cornell’s group salience, motivating users to identify themselves with the school. Visual anonymity and group salience predict that users will like the group more and become more willing to conform and trust the group’s standards. Hence, Facebook users are more willing to trust it through group influence. Google also takes advantage of the SIDE theory, explaining why so many people are willing to use it. Visual anonymity is present with Google since we obviously can’t see other users’ activity. I also believe that Google has a group identity as well; Googling something has become so prominent that the phrase is now a household term.

The Hyperpersonal Theory predicts that we will continue to maintain our intensely positive opinions of Facebook and Google, until more information and cues are made available as in a face to face meetings. Should the day come where Google takes privacy issues a bit too far and its leaders are derided through public media, then I’d predict more users would be less willing to trust Google with this added, more personal information. The same applies for Facebook, as long as they can avoid bad press, no one will know about nor care about its use of our private information. After all, ignorance is bliss!